4 comments:

However, what Banfield meant was asking whether the Boston bombings could have been prevented.

Her words may have been intentionally scripted to generate all sorts of chatter.

The reporter's story is conveniently timed in the weeks running up to the one-year anniversary to solidify the notion that the two guys they blamed for the bombings were actual and perpetrators, and to distract away from the crisis actors at the scene of the first bomb.

It's like the two guys claiming to have been part of the SEAL Team raid on bin Laden, arguing over specific points, with the Pentagon later saying one of the book authors disclosed confidential information in order to give it credibility, when the guy they claimed to have killed wasn't even bin Laden.

@FauxCapitalist- thanks for clarifying--that was my interpretation as well. If you listen all the way through, Banfield and the other woman are in no way questioning the validity or reality or the Boston bombing--they just seem to be saying that perhaps it didn't have to happen or could have been prevented. Anyone interested in further investigating what happened in Boston should go to that link and see what Dr. Stan (who has performed many amputations in his career) has to say. Also, I highly recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHWkRj5JfMc

And I think in the beginning Banfield mentioned those three dead drug dealers and tried to suggest Tamerlan was responsible for their murder. From what I understand Tamerlan was actually friends with those guys (or at least one of them), and I'm pretty sure he was cleared of any connection to the case. I think the JSM just brings it up to make him look evil, like he really did bomb the marathon b/c he's murdered before. Also, from what I recall, they were three jewish drug dealers, so maybe they just stole from or scammed the wrong person.